I'm glad I'm circumcised. And I'm glad my parents got it out of the way for me when I was a baby. Anybody here remember the pain of getting your foreskin snipped as a baby? nope.

I'm super duper happy for you that you are glad you got circumsized, however, what if you were not? Theres not exactely going back once you've cut of the forskin.

The point I'm trying to make, is that you never had choice, you were marked for life and had no choice in the matter.

As I've written down before, what if they hadn't taken your forskin, but your left eye, would you be glad you didn't feel it, well you probably would have, but would you be glad that you don't remember feeling it?

Now if I may ask, if you hadn't been circumsized, but today faced with the choice. Would you let your penis get circumsized at this age?

I know I would not, and I can't imagine others willing to, is that perhaps the reason why it's done to a baby? Because it cannot resist. Does that not imply that resistance would be met and rightfully so.

I'm glad I'm circumcised. And I'm glad my parents got it out of the way for me when I was a baby. Anybody here remember the pain of getting your foreskin snipped as a baby? nope.

I'm super duper happy for you that you are glad you got circumsized, however, what if you were not? Theres not exactely going back once you've cut of the forskin.

The point I'm trying to make, is that you never had choice, you were marked for life and had no choice in the matter.

As I've written down before, what if they hadn't taken your forskin, but your left eye, would you be glad you didn't feel it, well you probably would have, but would you be glad that you don't remember feeling it?

Now if I may ask, if you hadn't been circumsized, but today faced with the choice. Would you let your penis get circumsized at this age?

I know I would not, and I can't imagine others willing to, is that perhaps the reason why it's done to a baby? Because it cannot resist. Does that not imply that resistance would be met and rightfully so.

not sure if anyone gives a s**t about their foreskin rather than something so valuable as an eye... but yeah if I wasn't circumcised, then I would've gotten the procedure done on my own free will. It's only foreskin... Everyone who complains that circumcision is abuse as a baby is a pussy. Enough said.

Edit: yeah, as you can see, I'm tired of seeing people complain about such trivial things as the foreskin on their dicks. Selfish pricks.

I'm glad I'm circumcised. And I'm glad my parents got it out of the way for me when I was a baby. Anybody here remember the pain of getting your foreskin snipped as a baby? nope.

I'm super duper happy for you that you are glad you got circumsized, however, what if you were not? Theres not exactely going back once you've cut of the forskin.

The point I'm trying to make, is that you never had choice, you were marked for life and had no choice in the matter.

As I've written down before, what if they hadn't taken your forskin, but your left eye, would you be glad you didn't feel it, well you probably would have, but would you be glad that you don't remember feeling it?

Now if I may ask, if you hadn't been circumsized, but today faced with the choice. Would you let your penis get circumsized at this age?

I know I would not, and I can't imagine others willing to, is that perhaps the reason why it's done to a baby? Because it cannot resist. Does that not imply that resistance would be met and rightfully so.

not sure if anyone gives a s**t about their foreskin rather than something so valuable as an eye... but yeah if I wasn't circumcised, then I would've gotten the procedure done on my own free will. It's only foreskin... Everyone who complains that circumcision is abuse as a baby is a pussy. Enough said.

Edit: yeah, as you can see, I'm tired of seeing people complain about such trivial things as the foreskin on their dicks. Selfish pricks.

And the petty insults begin.
May I remind you that this is extended discussions, if you think a sentence such as ''Everyone who complains that circumcision is abuse as a baby is a pussy. Enough said.'' is an argument then please do not contribute to our discussion.

Now in my naieve hope to catch you on a more rational level.
You have completely evaded my argument of circumcision being forced upon a baby who is not able to resist as a violation of that baby's right.

And of course you completely neglect my comparison between the foreskin and the eye.

I'm glad I'm circumcised. And I'm glad my parents got it out of the way for me when I was a baby. Anybody here remember the pain of getting your foreskin snipped as a baby? nope.

I'm super duper happy for you that you are glad you got circumsized, however, what if you were not? Theres not exactely going back once you've cut of the forskin.

The point I'm trying to make, is that you never had choice, you were marked for life and had no choice in the matter.

As I've written down before, what if they hadn't taken your forskin, but your left eye, would you be glad you didn't feel it, well you probably would have, but would you be glad that you don't remember feeling it?

Now if I may ask, if you hadn't been circumsized, but today faced with the choice. Would you let your penis get circumsized at this age?

I know I would not, and I can't imagine others willing to, is that perhaps the reason why it's done to a baby? Because it cannot resist. Does that not imply that resistance would be met and rightfully so.

not sure if anyone gives a s**t about their foreskin rather than something so valuable as an eye... but yeah if I wasn't circumcised, then I would've gotten the procedure done on my own free will. It's only foreskin... Everyone who complains that circumcision is abuse as a baby is a pussy. Enough said.

Edit: yeah, as you can see, I'm tired of seeing people complain about such trivial things as the foreskin on their dicks. Selfish pricks.

And the petty insults begin.
May I remind you that this is extended discussions, if you think a sentence such as ''Everyone who complains that circumcision is abuse as a baby is a pussy. Enough said.'' is an argument then please do not contribute to our discussion.

Now in my naieve hope to catch you on a more rational level.
You have completely evaded my argument of circumcision being forced upon a baby who is not able to resist as a violation of that baby's right.

And of course you completely neglect my comparison between the foreskin and the eye.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I can give my academic 2 cents on something worthy of debate. However, the triviality of this topic makes me laugh.

Here: So a parent is allowed to KILL their unborn child, but to say that snipping a tiny piece of foreskin is abuse...? You are all mental.

I'm glad I'm circumcised. And I'm glad my parents got it out of the way for me when I was a baby. Anybody here remember the pain of getting your foreskin snipped as a baby? nope.

I'm super duper happy for you that you are glad you got circumsized, however, what if you were not? Theres not exactely going back once you've cut of the forskin.

The point I'm trying to make, is that you never had choice, you were marked for life and had no choice in the matter.

As I've written down before, what if they hadn't taken your forskin, but your left eye, would you be glad you didn't feel it, well you probably would have, but would you be glad that you don't remember feeling it?

Now if I may ask, if you hadn't been circumsized, but today faced with the choice. Would you let your penis get circumsized at this age?

I know I would not, and I can't imagine others willing to, is that perhaps the reason why it's done to a baby? Because it cannot resist. Does that not imply that resistance would be met and rightfully so.

not sure if anyone gives a s**t about their foreskin rather than something so valuable as an eye... but yeah if I wasn't circumcised, then I would've gotten the procedure done on my own free will. It's only foreskin... Everyone who complains that circumcision is abuse as a baby is a pussy. Enough said.

Edit: yeah, as you can see, I'm tired of seeing people complain about such trivial things as the foreskin on their dicks. Selfish pricks.

And the petty insults begin.
May I remind you that this is extended discussions, if you think a sentence such as ''Everyone who complains that circumcision is abuse as a baby is a pussy. Enough said.'' is an argument then please do not contribute to our discussion.

Now in my naieve hope to catch you on a more rational level.
You have completely evaded my argument of circumcision being forced upon a baby who is not able to resist as a violation of that baby's right.

And of course you completely neglect my comparison between the foreskin and the eye.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I can give my academic 2 cents on something worthy of debate. However, the triviality of this topic makes me laugh.

Here: So a parent is allowed to KILL their unborn child, but to say that snipping a tiny piece of foreskin is abuse? You are all mental.

And the petty insults continue.
Once again claiming that we are all ''mental'' is not an argument, as far as I know I haven't mentioned my stance once abortion yet you simply assume that.

If this topic is so trivial, then feel free not to post in it.

And as a reminder you're still ignoring my arguments.

And as a polite question, would you mind to refrain from using insults in your next post please?
Thank you very much

I'm glad I'm circumcised. And I'm glad my parents got it out of the way for me when I was a baby. Anybody here remember the pain of getting your foreskin snipped as a baby? nope.

I'm super duper happy for you that you are glad you got circumsized, however, what if you were not? Theres not exactely going back once you've cut of the forskin.

The point I'm trying to make, is that you never had choice, you were marked for life and had no choice in the matter.

As I've written down before, what if they hadn't taken your forskin, but your left eye, would you be glad you didn't feel it, well you probably would have, but would you be glad that you don't remember feeling it?

Now if I may ask, if you hadn't been circumsized, but today faced with the choice. Would you let your penis get circumsized at this age?

I know I would not, and I can't imagine others willing to, is that perhaps the reason why it's done to a baby? Because it cannot resist. Does that not imply that resistance would be met and rightfully so.

not sure if anyone gives a s**t about their foreskin rather than something so valuable as an eye... but yeah if I wasn't circumcised, then I would've gotten the procedure done on my own free will. It's only foreskin... Everyone who complains that circumcision is abuse as a baby is a pussy. Enough said.

Edit: yeah, as you can see, I'm tired of seeing people complain about such trivial things as the foreskin on their dicks. Selfish pricks.

And the petty insults begin.
May I remind you that this is extended discussions, if you think a sentence such as ''Everyone who complains that circumcision is abuse as a baby is a pussy. Enough said.'' is an argument then please do not contribute to our discussion.

Now in my naieve hope to catch you on a more rational level.
You have completely evaded my argument of circumcision being forced upon a baby who is not able to resist as a violation of that baby's right.

And of course you completely neglect my comparison between the foreskin and the eye.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I can give my academic 2 cents on something worthy of debate. However, the triviality of this topic makes me laugh.

Here: So a parent is allowed to KILL their unborn child, but to say that snipping a tiny piece of foreskin is abuse? You are all mental.

And the petty insults continue.
Once again claiming that we are all ''mental'' is not an argument, as far as I know I haven't mentioned my stance once abortion yet you simply assume that.

If this topic is so trivial, then feel free not to post in it.

And as a reminder you're still ignoring my arguments.

And as a polite question, would you mind to refrain from using insults in your next post please?
Thank you very much

asking me to refrain from insults is a violation of my own rights. I choose to use profanity.

I'm glad I'm circumcised. And I'm glad my parents got it out of the way for me when I was a baby. Anybody here remember the pain of getting your foreskin snipped as a baby? nope.

I'm super duper happy for you that you are glad you got circumsized, however, what if you were not? Theres not exactely going back once you've cut of the forskin.

The point I'm trying to make, is that you never had choice, you were marked for life and had no choice in the matter.

As I've written down before, what if they hadn't taken your forskin, but your left eye, would you be glad you didn't feel it, well you probably would have, but would you be glad that you don't remember feeling it?

Now if I may ask, if you hadn't been circumsized, but today faced with the choice. Would you let your penis get circumsized at this age?

I know I would not, and I can't imagine others willing to, is that perhaps the reason why it's done to a baby? Because it cannot resist. Does that not imply that resistance would be met and rightfully so.

not sure if anyone gives a s**t about their foreskin rather than something so valuable as an eye... but yeah if I wasn't circumcised, then I would've gotten the procedure done on my own free will. It's only foreskin... Everyone who complains that circumcision is abuse as a baby is a pussy. Enough said.

Edit: yeah, as you can see, I'm tired of seeing people complain about such trivial things as the foreskin on their dicks. Selfish pricks.

And the petty insults begin.
May I remind you that this is extended discussions, if you think a sentence such as ''Everyone who complains that circumcision is abuse as a baby is a pussy. Enough said.'' is an argument then please do not contribute to our discussion.

Now in my naieve hope to catch you on a more rational level.
You have completely evaded my argument of circumcision being forced upon a baby who is not able to resist as a violation of that baby's right.

And of course you completely neglect my comparison between the foreskin and the eye.

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I can give my academic 2 cents on something worthy of debate. However, the triviality of this topic makes me laugh.

Here: So a parent is allowed to KILL their unborn child, but to say that snipping a tiny piece of foreskin is abuse? You are all mental.

And the petty insults continue.
Once again claiming that we are all ''mental'' is not an argument, as far as I know I haven't mentioned my stance once abortion yet you simply assume that.

If this topic is so trivial, then feel free not to post in it.

And as a reminder you're still ignoring my arguments.

And as a polite question, would you mind to refrain from using insults in your next post please?
Thank you very much

asking me to refrain from insults is a violation of my own rights. I choose to use profanity.

You have completely evaded my argument of circumcision being forced upon a baby who is not able to resist as a violation of that baby's right.

what rights do you speak of? It's natural for you and many others to say that. You have an innate and naive sense of justice that you feel you must be an advocate for.

The rights to not have their bodies permanently damaged by others without consent.
Now the reason I am trying to bring up this debate is because if we allow circumcision then we open the door for many more practices.
We grant parents the right to cut off any part of their offsprings body, wich we see with female circumcision.
Now if you want at your age to be circumsized, then by all means do so, but do not impose it on a defenseless child. Do not harm the body of a child in any way.

Also I do expect an apology from you, you simply assumed my stance on abortion without having a clue on what I think off about that subject.
Not only that but you referred to me as ''you people''

The rights to not have their bodies permanently damaged by others without consent.
Now the reason I am trying to bring up this debate is because if we allow circumcision then we open the door for many more practices.
We grant parents the right to cut off any part of their offsprings body, wich we see with female circumcision.
Now if you want at your age to be circumsized, then by all means do so, but do not impose it on a defenseless child. Do not harm the body of a child in any way.

Give me one way it permanently damages the child in any way. What other practices can you think of?

You say we open the doors for many more practices because of circumcision? But then, why haven't they been opened already? In case you forgot, circumcision has been occurring for over 2 millenniums, so if any "doors" existed, they would already have been opened, and we would be mutilated freaks of nature (sarcasm).

EDIT: btw, newborns have no literally almost no rights, and circumcision is a very small procedure and relatively painless. I'm sure children who were "given" a choice later on would appreciate a full-scale surgery on their *fully developed and exponentially larger genitals* (rather than one they can't even psychologically remember)

The rights to not have their bodies permanently damaged by others without consent.
Now the reason I am trying to bring up this debate is because if we allow circumcision then we open the door for many more practices.
We grant parents the right to cut off any part of their offsprings body, wich we see with female circumcision.
Now if you want at your age to be circumsized, then by all means do so, but do not impose it on a defenseless child. Do not harm the body of a child in any way.

Give me one way it permanently damages the child in any way. What other practices can you think of?

You say we open the doors for many more practices because of circumcision? But then, why haven't they been opened already? In case you forgot, circumcision has been occurring for over 2 millenniums, so if any "doors" existed, they would already have been opened, and we would be mutilated freaks of nature (sarcasm).

Well do you really need me to answer your first question? Circumcision cuts of a part (even though it's small it's still a part) of the body, and thereby permanently damaging it.
A different practice would be the female circumcision, in this practice the parents cut of the clitoris of their baby.
This is also an example of opening the door to other pracitces.
Your argument that the tradition of circumcision is an old one and therefore okay is a terrible one.
Slavery is perhaps an older tradition, but it is most certainly not okay anymore.

The rights to not have their bodies permanently damaged by others without consent.
Now the reason I am trying to bring up this debate is because if we allow circumcision then we open the door for many more practices.
We grant parents the right to cut off any part of their offsprings body, wich we see with female circumcision.
Now if you want at your age to be circumsized, then by all means do so, but do not impose it on a defenseless child. Do not harm the body of a child in any way.

Give me one way it permanently damages the child in any way. What other practices can you think of?

You say we open the doors for many more practices because of circumcision? But then, why haven't they been opened already? In case you forgot, circumcision has been occurring for over 2 millenniums, so if any "doors" existed, they would already have been opened, and we would be mutilated freaks of nature (sarcasm).

Well do you really need me to answer your first question? Circumcision cuts of a part (even though it's small it's still a part) of the body, and thereby permanently damaging it.
A different practice would be the female circumcision, in this practice the parents cut of the clitoris of their baby.
This is also an example of opening the door to other pracitces.
Your argument that the tradition of circumcision is an old one and therefore okay is a terrible one.
Slavery is perhaps an older tradition, but it is most certainly not okay anymore.

comparing slavery to circumcision is an excellent argument as well (sarcasm again, if you didn't realize)~!

Damaging: physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function.

Circumcision. Does is impair value, usefulness, or the normal function of a penis?

I'll let you answer that.

I don't mean to come off as a dick, but I'm just trying to convey my point here.

In America, most males are circumcised. I don't personally have a problem with circumcision, but obviously, there is a double standard. There is such a thing as female circumcision, and if people in America started circumcising their little girls, people would go ballistic. There would be riots, and most likely, there would not be any argument as to whether or not it is abusive to mutilate the genitalia a female infant. I'd have to say that being a female, I wouldn't want anything cut down there.

That being said, male circumcision is something we're used to. (Of course, I'm speaking from the point of America. I know that in many other parts of the world circumcision is not regularly practiced.) Often, it isn't done because of religious beliefs or health reasons. Sometimes parents make the decision to have it done in the hospital after the baby is born just because it's the thing that is done.

If the practice were to end in a America it would definitely take some getting used to. There are many people, male and female, who are freaked out just by the thought of an uncircumcised penis. I wouldn't call it abuse, but that's probably because I'm used to the practice. That's the way things are done here in America. If I was raised in a country where circumcision is uncommon, I'm sure I would consider it abuse.

[Circumcision is not always performed because of religious/philosophical beliefs. Have you considered it in terms of health?]

there is no health benefits to circumcision. all supposed health benefits are flawed

I agree with you, but in America, I think circumcision is healthier, only because I don't think that young boys would be taught to clean properly due to circumcision being so common. I'm not really sure how much different it is, but I was taught in one of my high school health classes that boys with uncircumcised penises are more likely to get infections because they're "more complicated" to clean. I debate how much truth there really is to that. I don't exactly have a frame of reference. That, however, is not as much a health benefit, as much as it is responsibility, or lack of responsibility, of the parents and/or society. Children should be taught to clean whatever they have properly, whether it's common or not.

If a man is circumcised, he faces an increased risk of experiencing delayed orgasm, and his female partner has an increased risk of not feeling sexually fulfilled.

This is the clear-cut conclusion of a new Danish research article, which has received international attention.

Some 5,000 sexually active men and women were surveyed about their experiences and possible problems with their sex lives. With a specific focus on circumcised men and their women, the results are startling.

“Circumcised men are three times as likely to experience a frequent inability to reach an orgasm,” says one of the researchers, Associate Professor Morten Frisch from Danish research enterprise SSI.
Research into the effects on women is unique

This is one of only a few studies of the sexual consequences of male circumcision, and in one area in particular it is groundbreaking:

“Previous studies into male circumcision have looked at the effects it has on the men. But scientists have never really studied the effects this has on the women's sex lives,” says Frisch.

“It appears that women with circumcised men are twice as likely to be sexually frustrated. They experience a three-fold risk of frequent difficulties in achieving orgasm, and an eight-fold risk of feeling pain during intercourse – also known as dyspareunia.”

There appears to be a very simple reason why circumcised men and their partners are having problems with their sex lives.

The circumcised man develops a thin layer of hard skin on his penis head, which decreases the sensitivity. This means that in order to reach an orgasm, he needs to work harder at it, and that can lead to a painful experience for the woman.

“We conducted a survey, but the data does not explain why these problems occur. There are, however, some good suggestions in the scientific literature,” he explains.

When the penis enters the vagina, the foreskin is pulled back. And on its way out again, the foreskin goes back to cover the penis head. This way the foreskin stimulates both the man and the woman.

The gliding in-and-out movement of the foreskin, combined with the in-and-out movement inside the vagina, constitutes what is known as ‘the gliding movement’.

“When a circumcised man moves in and out of a woman without 'the gliding movement' caused by the foreskin, it can have a painful effect on the woman's mucous membrane. This could explain the pain and the tendency towards dryness that some women with circumcised men experience.”